2022 elections

[O Really]

New (for me) analysis/prediction site. Claims to have beat Nate in 2020, very detailed in breakdown. Site is not particularly user-friendly, but has a bunch of information.
https://www.racetothewh.com/

[Vrede too]

I don't think Katie Hobbs really wants to be governor.

She's giving the election away.

This article agrees with you:

Democrats Worry They're Being Overshadowed in Arizona's Governor Race

This article is suspiciously pessimistic for Hobbs. RW bias? The con RCP Average is Lake just +0.9%. Way too soon for a Hobbs epitaph. IMO a vote for lying, whiny, Cult .45 Big Lie nutjob Lake is unacceptable. Maybe enough Arizonans will agree no matter what Hobbs does.

[O Really]

Everybody knows, whether they admit it or not, that the US is a fundamentally racist society. In almost every facet of life, white people, and particularly white males, have a starting advantage over everybody else. One minor example (out of countless available) was the resume test run a few years ago where the only difference in the resumes was the name of the applicant. There was a generic white guy name, a black-sounding name, and a female name. Otherwise everything about the resume was identical. Sending the same resume in for the same job listing found a significant across the board greater number of call-ins for the white guy than the others.

So I wondered if anybody had calculated the built-in advantage of the white guy over the black woman in any given election. And if they did, have they reported it to the Dems. In particular, I thought about Beasley in NC and Demings in FL. Both of these are highly qualified for the office they're running for, and both opponents have significant vulnerabilities. In NC, the last I saw, Budd was leading Beasley by 4 or 5. I'll bet if Beasley was as white guy with the exact same qualifications, he's be leading. In GA, even as a Dem, I bet Warnock would be leading substantially over Horrible Walker if he were a white guy.

Do the Dems really believe they're advancing the cause of black people or black females in particular to keep on sending them up as cannon fodder instead of actually winning elections?

[Vrede too]

... Do the Dems really believe they're advancing the cause of black people or black females in particular to keep on sending them up as cannon fodder instead of actually winning elections?

RCP Average 9/15 - 10/13: Budd (R) 45.8, Beasley (D) 43.3
Spread Budd +2.5, but the most recent of the polls says Budd +6

I can't argue with your reasoning about racist Amerikkka, but there are other important factors to this NC US Senate race:
Beasley has won statewide before - SC justice;
Beasley lost her last SC race by a razor thin margin;
Besides the Gov and AG we don't have a Dem of any race with the same electability credential;
Beasley crushed it in the primary - 81% vs 10 opponents, none of whom got more than 3.54%. The list includes men and women, I'm not bothering to look up their races;
https://er.ncsbe.gov/?election_dt=05/17 ... ntest=2132
Beasley is being absolutely swamped by nasty, lying, negative ads, none of which are overtly racist or sexist, though they all make sure to show unflattering, heavily edited clips of her. Hard for anyone to beat that.

You might convince NC Dem Party officials, but getting Dem voters to reject a candidate because of being non-White or a woman? Ain't gonna happen.

[GoCubsGo]

More proof that playing football causes brain damage.

[O Really]

You might convince NC Dem Party officials, but getting Dem voters to reject a candidate because of being non-White or a woman? Ain't gonna happen.

So one might wonder how long are they going just be happy losers before taking a different approach? Dems have let the Repugs control the dialog and run amock for decades because of not accepting that things have changed. The Repug's "Southern Strategy" has been successful way beyond their fondest hopes and continuing to appeal to the most racist, most fearful, and least educated of voters works for them. All I'm saying is that Dems need to focus on one thing - winning elections. Consider how candidate selection can have a long-term affect: you may recall that the only reason Spiro Agnew was elected Governor of MD in 1966 was because the Dem candidate was so horribly awful even hard-core Dems such as myself (in my first opportunity to vote) couldn't stomach the racist slime. So sure, Nixon may have picked some other sleaze-bucket for his VP, but it wouldn't have been indicted/disgraced Agnew. In 1968, LBJ had been effectively run out of office by the war. So who was the wise guy that thought it would be a good idea to run his VP, a very nice guy who never was willing to forcibly refute LBJ's war policy? Nixon got elected largely because of that.

Losing sucks.

[Vrede too]

So one might wonder how long are they going just be happy losers before taking a different approach? Dems have let the Repugs control the dialog and run amock for decades because of not accepting that things have changed. The Repug's "Southern Strategy" has been successful way beyond their fondest hopes and continuing to appeal to the most racist, most fearful, and least educated of voters works for them. All I'm saying is that Dems need to focus on one thing - winning elections. Consider how candidate selection can have a long-term affect: you may recall that the only reason Spiro Agnew was elected Governor of MD in 1966 was because the Dem candidate was so horribly awful even hard-core Dems such as myself (in my first opportunity to vote) couldn't stomach the racist slime. So sure, Nixon may have picked some other sleaze-bucket for his VP, but it wouldn't have been indicted/disgraced Agnew. In 1968, LBJ had been effectively run out of office by the war. So who was the wise guy that thought it would be a good idea to run his VP, a very nice guy who never was willing to forcibly refute LBJ's war policy? Nixon got elected largely because of that.

Losing sucks.

For better or worse IMO the time has passed that one can convince enough Dem voters to choose the White male pol because he's a White male pol. So, it might be more successful in the long run to figure out how to elect non-White male pols.

Anyhow, I don't THINK the discussion applies to Beasley. This year she is the better candidate than any NC White male Dem available. Unfortunately, there are too many thing to blame Dems for that aren't their fault this year, and voters just aren't very sophisticated.

IIRC HHH was a late entry after RFK was slain. The establishment Dems were terrified of McCarthy. Idk that McCarthy would have done better than HHH, though. Mayor Daley pretty well killed the Dems in 1968.

[O Really]

I could be wrong - wouldn't be the first time - but it seems the art of recruiting/vetting good candidates has been generally lost by the Dems, opting instead for a "let 'em all eat each other and run the survivor" approach. Just because somebody wants to run for office and has a right to do so doesn't mean they should get encouragement if they're bound to be a loser.

You know why Tiffany Smiley is within 10 points of 30-year and generally popular incumbent Patty Murray in WA? Because she was selected and created to be as competitive as a Repug could get there. She's not some flame-throwing Boembert or Greene, even though everybody knows if she got to office she'd vote along with the loons. She's got a good backstory, stands at arms length from Trump, and comes across as a nice person you'd like to have for a neighbor. Designed and created to compete statewide, dividing the state into "the Washington you can see from the top of the Space Needle and "everywhere else." She claims to be from "everywhere else." She throws in enough us/them and homo/transphobia to dog whistle, but doesn't dwell on it. She'd be a horrible senator, but she's a great candidate who's fooling a lot of people.

[Vrede too]

I could be wrong - wouldn't be the first time - but it seems the art of recruiting/vetting good candidates has been generally lost by the Dems, opting instead for a "let 'em all eat each other and run the survivor" approach. Just because somebody wants to run for office and has a right to do so doesn't mean they should get encouragement if they're bound to be a loser....

To be fair, the GQP has had plenty of wildly contested primaries this year, with the worst candidate often winning. It may be the only thing giving the Dems a shot. However, that doesn't excuse the Dems for the poor recruitment and development that you bemoan.

[O Really]

I could be wrong - wouldn't be the first time - but it seems the art of recruiting/vetting good candidates has been generally lost by the Dems, opting instead for a "let 'em all eat each other and run the survivor" approach. Just because somebody wants to run for office and has a right to do so doesn't mean they should get encouragement if they're bound to be a loser....

To be fair, the GQP has had plenty of wildly contested primaries this year, with the worst candidate often winning. It may be the only thing giving the Dems a shot. However, that doesn't excuse the Dems for the poor recruitment and development that you bemoan.

Yeah, but part of that is because of the special kind of stupid of the trumpist Repugs, who find craziness to be a feature, not a bug, in their candidates. Those candidates we find "the worst" were picked and supported by the Trump faction - intentionally. McConnell, et. al. seem to recognize that election success is more likely if a candidate at least gives lip service to appealing to the broader electorate, but that's not the prevailing view of the bat-shit crazy moon-barking drooling Repug "mainstream."

[GoCubsGo]

I could be wrong - wouldn't be the first time - but it seems the art of recruiting/vetting good candidates has been generally lost by the Dems, opting instead for a "let 'em all eat each other and run the survivor" approach. Just because somebody wants to run for office and has a right to do so doesn't mean they should get encouragement if they're bound to be a loser....

To be fair, the GQP has had plenty of wildly contested primaries this year, with the worst candidate often winning. It may be the only thing giving the Dems a shot. However, that doesn't excuse the Dems for the poor recruitment and development that you bemoan.

Yeah, but part of that is because of the special kind of stupid of the trumpist Repugs, who find craziness to be a feature, not a bug, in their candidates. Those candidates we find "the worst" were picked and supported by the Trump faction - intentionally. McConnell, et. al. seem to recognize that election success is more likely if a candidate at least gives lip service to appealing to the broader electorate, but that's not the prevailing view of the bat-shit crazy moon-barking drooling Repug "mainstream."

Just a guess.

Seems like it's a result of vote splitting amongst the semi sane candidates and the sickophants coalescing around the loons.

[Vrede too]

Just a guess.

Seems like it's a result of vote splitting amongst the semi sane candidates and the sickophants coalescing around the loons.

The coalescing was easy for the simpleminded since TRE45QN was only endorsing one candidate per race. Even some of the "semi sane candidates" scrambled to be just as Trumpist, but they didn't get the Orange Pope's blessing.

Slavery is on the ballot for voters in 5 US states

More than 150 years after slaves were freed in the U.S., voters in five states will soon decide whether to close loopholes that led to the proliferation of a different form of slavery — forced labor by people convicted of certain crimes....

“The idea that you could ever finish the sentence ‘slavery’s okay when ... ’ has to rip out your soul, and I think it’s what makes this a fight that ignores political lines and brings us together, because it feels so clear,” said Bianca Tylek, executive director of Worth Rises, a criminal justice advocacy group pushing to remove the amendment's convict labor clause.

Nearly 20 states have constitutions that include language permitting slavery and involuntary servitude as criminal punishments. In 2018, Colorado was the first to remove the language from its founding frameworks by ballot measure, followed by Nebraska and Utah two years later.

This November, versions of the question go before voters in Alabama, Louisiana, Oregon, Tennessee and Vermont.

(extended discussion of the Tennessee campaign)

... Alabama is asking voters to delete all racist language from its constitution and to remove and replace a section on convict labor that's similar to what Tennessee has had in its constitution.

Vermont often boasts of being the first state in the nation to ban slavery in 1777, but its constitution still allows involuntary servitude in a handful of circumstances.

Irony.

Its proposed change would replace the current exception clause with language saying "slavery and involuntary servitude are forever prohibited in this State.” ...

“We’ve never seen a single day in the United States where slavery was not legal,” he said. “We want to see what that looks like and I think that’s worth it."

[O Really]

CBS interviewer of a guy in a diner in Arizona:
CBS: "Who do you intend to vote for?"
MBD*: "Masters"
CBS: "What do you know about Masters?"
MBD: "Nothing, except he's not Mark Kelly. Kelly hasn't done anything for Arizona. Anyway, Trump likes Masters so I'll let Trump do my vetting. If he likes him, then I will too"

*Moon-Barking Drooler

Nothing you can do about stuff like that except to wait for them to die off, but it appears they may be as resilient as cockroaches.

[neoplacebo]

What a bunch of stompable bullshit. How can people possibly be so stupid? And I couldn't help noticing that MBD didn't exactly explain what Masters has done for AZ other than help make them a laughing stock.

[O Really]

What a bunch of stompable bullshit. How can people possibly be so stupid? And I couldn't help noticing that MBD didn't exactly explain what Masters has done for AZ other than help make them a laughing stock.

Yeah, he said he didn't know anything about him except that he wasn't Mark Kelly. Idiot.

[Vrede too]

CBS interviewer of a guy in a diner in Arizona:
CBS: "Who do you intend to vote for?"
MBD*: "Masters"
CBS: "What do you know about Masters?"
MBD: "Nothing, except he's not Mark Kelly. Kelly hasn't done anything for Arizona. Anyway, Trump likes Masters so I'll let Trump do my vetting. If he likes him, then I will too"

*Moon-Barking Drooler

Nothing you can do about stuff like that except to wait for them to die off, but it appears they may be as resilient as cockroaches.

What a bunch of stompable bullshit. How can people possibly be so stupid? And I couldn't help noticing that MBD didn't exactly explain what Masters has done for AZ other than help make them a laughing stock.

Ooh ooh, what is NOTHING, Ken? Blake Masters is a venture capitalist without even a notable capital presence in Arizona beyond the spending on his campaign.



Reminds me of:



Maybe the MBD's will lose.
RCP Average 9/30 - 10/17: Kelly (D) * 46.5, Masters (R) 44.0
Spread Kelly +2.5

[billy.pilgrim]

Just a guess.

Seems like it's a result of vote splitting amongst the semi sane candidates and the sickophants coalescing around the loons.

The coalescing was easy for the simpleminded since TRE45QN was only endorsing one candidate per race. Even some of the "semi sane candidates" scrambled to be just as Trumpist, but they didn't get the Orange Pope's blessing.

Slavery is on the ballot for voters in 5 US states

More than 150 years after slaves were freed in the U.S., voters in five states will soon decide whether to close loopholes that led to the proliferation of a different form of slavery — forced labor by people convicted of certain crimes....

“The idea that you could ever finish the sentence ‘slavery’s okay when ... ’ has to rip out your soul, and I think it’s what makes this a fight that ignores political lines and brings us together, because it feels so clear,” said Bianca Tylek, executive director of Worth Rises, a criminal justice advocacy group pushing to remove the amendment's convict labor clause.

Nearly 20 states have constitutions that include language permitting slavery and involuntary servitude as criminal punishments. In 2018, Colorado was the first to remove the language from its founding frameworks by ballot measure, followed by Nebraska and Utah two years later.

This November, versions of the question go before voters in Alabama, Louisiana, Oregon, Tennessee and Vermont.

(extended discussion of the Tennessee campaign)

... Alabama is asking voters to delete all racist language from its constitution and to remove and replace a section on convict labor that's similar to what Tennessee has had in its constitution.

Vermont often boasts of being the first state in the nation to ban slavery in 1777, but its constitution still allows involuntary servitude in a handful of circumstances.

Irony.

Its proposed change would replace the current exception clause with language saying "slavery and involuntary servitude are forever prohibited in this State.” ...

“We’ve never seen a single day in the United States where slavery was not legal,” he said. “We want to see what that looks like and I think that’s worth it."

"slavery and involuntary servitude are forever prohibited in this State.” .

Would this include the draft?

[Vrede too]

"slavery and involuntary servitude are forever prohibited in this State.” .

Would this include the draft?

Good point. What about childhood chores and 'Honey do' lists?

[billy.pilgrim]

Here's one of the crazy baby blood drinking left coast liberules making way too much sense for a politician. Too bad she had to use facts, who'll buy it?

Imagine this, it really wasn't Biden who caused the inflation, it was the spirits of the long dead Hamburglar and Tony the Tiger infused throughout corporateland by Citizen's United.




More great comments

"I tried pointing this out to my neighbor who was complaining about inflation, particularly gas prices. His answer was "They closed the XL Pipeline". So closing the pipeline that never sent the US any oil made prices go up."

"Corporate profits are at a 72 year high. It’s freaking insane."

[Vrede too]

Here's one of the crazy baby blood drinking left coast liberules making way too much sense for a politician. Too bad she had to use facts, who'll buy it?

Imagine this, it really wasn't Biden who caused the inflation, it was the spirits of the long dead Hamburglar and Tony the Tiger infused throughout corporateland by Citizen's United.


More great comments

"I tried pointing this out to my neighbor who was complaining about inflation, particularly gas prices. His answer was "They closed the XL Pipeline". So closing the pipeline that never sent the US any oil made prices go up."

"Corporate profits are at a 72 year high. It’s freaking insane."

Thanks!

They're all saying that about the pipeline, clearly a manufactured talking point suited for RepuQs that are too slow to think things through. You can also point out that the oil is already entering market by other means, so no effect on prices by stopping construction, AND that Joe doesn't have the power to increase GLOBAL oil prices (or inflation). Of course, facts and reason never do any good, but at least you will know that you stomped them.

The seven Democrats most likely to run for president — if Biden bows out


Not a bad lineup IMO. I think Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA) is great, too. She absolutely shreds RepuQs and CEOs.

'POTUS Porter' has a nice ring to it.